Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: This area lies within the eastern ‘Pacific’ sector of the Coral Triangle and has the second-highest known alpha diversity for coral and reef fish in the world.
Evidence B:The project area in question is situated at the eastern end of the Coral Triangle and, even by that region’s standards, boasts very high levels of marine biodiversity along with relatively healthy reef, marine, and coastal systems, due in part to lower population densities than other parts of the region.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Indeed, the online scoring tool map depicts a rate > 150 t/ha, which shows that the area is highly important for climate mitigation.
Evidence B:While this project focuses primarily on marine enhancing traditional systems of sustainable management for marine habitats and resources, the concept of gwala is used for managing terrestrial resources, as well. A project that supports and strengthens the use of gwala in the region’s marine habitats will almost certainly have a complementary impact on adjoining terrestrial habitats. The region also harbors mangroves and seagrass beds that are major storers of carbon.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: No data available in CI database. The EoI recognises a diversity of culture in the areas and put emphasis on the governance mechanisms within clans. It also describes formal recognition of customary rights under national law. However, considering external sources of information, PNG faces a number of challenges including poor law and order and complex governance arrangements that are worth taking into account for the purpose of the project, which are not referred to in the EoI.
Evidence B:The entire region under this project is owned and managed by indigenous holders under the PNG constitution. This project would attempt to strengthen traditional resource management practices that are slowly eroding due to a variety of factors that are both internal to PNG and coming from outside demand for marine resources.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: Although the explanation of the cultural significance of the area to IPLCs is reasonably well explained through the EoI, some other details about the area relevance and its background would be helpful to understand IPLC culture and their strong ties to lands.
Evidence B:PNG is widely considered one of the most culturally and linguistically diverse countries on the planet. The proposal provides a very good description of that diversity with a solid explanation for why support for gwala helps to strengthen and preserve cultural and linguistic identity.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Anthropogenic threats caused by overuse of resources concentrated over the area are the main threat to ecosystem assets. Threats include unsustainable fishing, sea surface temperature, and ocean acidification, among others. Furthermore, marine and freshwater habitats are potentially threatened by land clearance and pollution, which in turn threatens the globally significant species and unique cultures that rely on them.
Evidence B:With a score of 58 for marine threats and context, PNG marine environments would appear to be under moderate to high threat. The marine resources in Milne Bay Province, the focus of this proposal, suffer primarily from over-harvest of a variety of fish, echinoderm, and mollusk species, many of which are destined for markets in Asia. These resources, many of which are not traditionally consumed locally, are often harvested unsustainably with subsequent ecosystem impacts.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Even though there is evidence of recognition of IPLC customary laws and rights, there are issues in relation to regulation implementation and methodologies used as well as lack of cohesion and potential clashes between stakeholders.
Evidence B:As described in the proposal, the legal frameworks for recognizing IPLC governance exist in PNG, but could be strengthened in ways that provide better support for local tenure over and management of natural resources.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Local government has implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation, however, there is still a lack of effectiveness to ensure stakeholder engagement due to the implementation of a top-down approach.
Evidence B:Government recognition of IPLC conservation is found in legal frameworks and in the creation of conservation areas that are managed by local communities. It is assumed that these frameworks are as strong for marine as for terrestrial areas. By tradition in Melanesia, resource tenure generally extends to just beyond the reef, although this can vary by region, but it is unclear whether policy frameworks provide as much credence to marine tenure claims as to terrestrial claims.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Since all 97 percent of all land in PNG is owned by IPLCs, all conservation efforts in the country depend on the cooperation and participation of IPLCs. As mentioned in the proposal, not all conservation efforts, particularly those led by outside groups, have put IPLC management front and center, but the ECA’s efforts to revive traditional management of natural resources held under local tenure have made strides in reviving a resource management ethic that is culturally relevant.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The ECA proposal lists three other similar projects that it is currently running that are similar or complementary to the proposed line of work. There also appears to be GEF funding in PNG from three other transnational grants.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:As noted above, the legal framework in PNG is already (on paper) very supportive of IPLC management of local resources. This project seeks to strengthen that framework from the bottom up by reviving and reinforcing traditional methods of resource management.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The activities and outcomes in this proposal are sensible and logical, but could be a bit better defined, in particular in how they complement/support each other and build to the ultimate outcome (#6), which is creation of a zoned national marine sanctuary. I suspect that the NMS is an outcome that can only be achieved outside the timeframe of this grant, should it be awarded. In this reviewer’s opinion, the primary outcome of this work should be strengthened, multi-generational capacity across Milne Bay to manage its marine resources through a revival of gwala traditional management practices.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Activity #1 refers to the benefits of extending traditional closures of fishing areas, but the wording of that activity could be made more specific in how it will actually address the ongoing threats of overfishing, reef degradation, climate change, etc. I believe that the activities in this proposal can address the extant threats to marine resources in Milne Bay; they just need to be better identified.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The proposed project relies on local staff and resources, and the proposed budget appears to be well-aligned with the activities and outcomes.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The EOI describes small sources of in-kind support or reduced charges for services from participating communities and the government of Milne Bay Province. Moderate amounts of funding have also been secured from the NGO Blue Ventures and the Swift Foundation. If awarded, the ICI grant would constitute a significant increase in ECA’s funding.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: After having converted the information provided in the EoI, it would rank the project as a High score. However, there is no specific data regarding the total amount of hectares under improved management.
Evidence B:The proposal estimates the activities under this proposal would improve resource management over approximately 7.5 million ha of Milne Bay waters. Given the insular nature of the province, that seems an achievable outcome.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The preservation of customary/traditional resource management measures and methods through video and audio recordings, held by the source communities and government institutions clearly supports the objectives of the project.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:By focusing on multi-generational transference and acceptance of traditional resource management practices, the project should ensure that gwala continues to be practiced for the foreseeable future. Thus the project includes complementary elements of both cultural and resource conservation.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: Critical point of view from the proponent in relation to PNG NBSAPs. There is not sufficient information developed in this regard through the section. On the other hand, the project objectives are clearly related to sustainable marine resources management and the integral role of IPLCs in the conservation of biodiversity, which will surely make national and global contributions.
Evidence B:PNG had not revised its NBSAP to reflect the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (ABTs) at the time of the proposal’s development. However, the project does contribute to meeting a number of the ABTs in lieu of a revised PNG NBSAP.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:ECA has female staff and a clear strategy for ensuring that women are encouraged to participate in resource management decisions as described in the proposal. While many of the traditional cultures in Milne Bay are matrilineal, the project recognizes the need to encourage the full participation of women in the project and has a realistic strategy for doing so.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:As the vast majority of terrestrial and marine habitats/resources in PNG fall under traditional resource tenure, this project has a very high potential for expansion to other parts of the country, should it prove successful.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:ECA is led by by David Mitchell who has PNG citizenship and has lived in the country for decades. The other staff of ECA all appear to PNG natives, but that does not necessarily make ECA an IPLC organization. ECA is clear in its intention to build capacity of the communities in which it proposes to work. As such, I believe this project is best described as a combination/partnership.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:ECA has multiple projects either underway or completed that demonstrate long-standing leadership and contributions to the proposed work.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Local communities are described as leading the proposed work under this proposal, with ECA in a support or catalytic role. As such, it is assumed that they had a role in defining the course of work described and contributed to its development. Local government institutions are also listed as important project partners.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:ECA staff have experience in designing and implementing GEF projects and have lengthy experience working in Milne Bay Province on issues around marine resources management.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The organization does have a diversified funding stream, but the entire organizational annual budget is no more than $300,000, and audits are conducted only upon donor request.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:ECA has been a part of or has implemented a number of GEF projects in the past and is familiar with its safeguards and standards.